• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

It’s impossible to please everyone so do what is right and just.

Richard J. Clark · March 7, 2014

GENERALLY DON’T ADVOCATE taking liturgical advice from TV shows, no less from a fictional character who is an amoral psychopath. However, this quote from “The Sopranos” rings true: “A wrong decision is better than indecision.”– Tony Soprano

I learned at a very young age that different people may react strongly and in polar opposite ways to the very same piece of music. You will receive credit and blame for the very same work. When I was twenty-one years old and still a student at the Berklee College of Music, I was directing music for the Sunday evening liturgy. All of the musicians and singers were talented Berklee students, and I encouraged them not to hold back. (I was also young and clueless.)

After mass a man approached me and said with a wide-eyed smile, “Thank GOD someone is doing what you are doing!” The feel-good vibes were short lived. Less than fifteen seconds later a young woman stormed up and asked one of the singers “WHO is in charge here?” Immediately, everyone pointed to me. No one wanted to touch this encounter with a ten-foot pole. “You RUINED my communion experience!!!” She continued to chew me out, repeating this phrase several times.

I don’t recall my exact response, but I do remember keeping calm, listening to her, and being unperturbed by the experience. I didn’t take her rant personally because I was mindful that I couldn’t control how other people react. I can only control my decisions. But I thought about my musical choices and learned from it. I was able to see both points of view which helped me make better decisions down the road. But more interestingly, it opened my eyes to a simple truth: people experience music differently. Therefore, you will never please everyone, nor should you.

ECENTLY, I CAME ACROSS yet anther nondescript poll about liturgical music. For the most part, it simply asked what kind of music people liked and how they felt about the state of music in the Church today. The article made no reference to liturgy documents or put forth any catechesis on the role of sacred music in the liturgy. It only addressed people’s personal preferences. The results of the poll, which expressed a wide spectrum of opinions on a wide range of musical styles hammered home the same message: It is impossible to please everyone.

Likewise, there may be factions or individuals within your community that are difficult to please. So what do we do?

Here is what not to do: Musicians and pastors (who can relate to this problem more than we’ll ever know) must avoid something I call “Reactionary Management.” Reactionary Management is when the tail wags the dog. Here’s how it works:

Someone complained! Oh, no! Therefore, change it!

No. Someone complained? OK. Step back and see if the complaint or aspects of the complaint are valid. Evaluate the complaint regardless of how it was delivered, charitably or otherwise. Then, make a decision, which may or may not please the person who complained. (In fact, it’s unlikely.)

RULY, HERE IS WHAT WE MUST DO: Since it is impossible to please everyone, forget trying. (This can be liberating!) Instead, we must approach our decisions with doing what is right and just. Our responsibilities are to God, the liturgy, and the community as a whole. We have guidance from the Vatican II documents and the GIRM. Furthermore, the principles of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, and Lex Vivendi remind us if we believe what we pray, we must respond to God’s call by the way that we live. This is what is right and just.

HERE ARE THREE SIGNS that you are on the right track:
1 • Doing what is right and just for the faithful will likely mean you are not making decisions based solely on your own personal preferences. In fact, you are probably not doing what you prefer most or much of the time.
2 • If you receive resistance, especially strong resistance, you are probably doing what is right and just. (There’s an old military saying: “If you are not catching flak, you are not over the target.”)
3 • If you are doing the hard work of long-term catechesis and resisting easy quick-fix solutions, you are probably doing what is right and just.

ACK TO TONY SOPRANO’S ADVICE — “A wrong decision is better than indecision.” I have discovered about human nature, that while many people are willing to voice very strong opinions (especially about music), very few are willing to take responsibility for implementing their vision. They may even give excellent advice worth listening to, but would rather that someone else take the heat if (when) there are complaints. Taking on this responsibility creates too much stress for some, often resulting in indecision (not to be confused with true discernment). Indecision based on avoidance of responsibility fosters dysfunction, decay, and abuse even in a religious environment.

Rabbi Edwin H. Friedman writes in his book A Failure of Nerve (Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix): “The conventional view of stress is that it has to do with overwork…Trying to be creative and imaginative is stressful, being responsible is stressful, being on the lookout for and trying to deal with sabotage is stressful.” (A Failure of Nerve, pg. 219-220) In other words, taking responsibility for doing what is right and just is stressful. Don’t envy a pastor’s or music director’s job!

Furthermore, no one likes a conductor or boss who blames others. If my tenors missed their entrance, maybe my cue wasn’t clear or I didn’t prepare them well enough. I have to look at that. Will this be perceived as weakness? No. It will earn respect and I’ll become a better conductor. Blaming others and unwillingness to take responsibility for problems or decisions are clear signs of poor leadership. If you see that, beware.

In Summary:
• Do not make decisions based upon appeasing others. Try to do the right thing at the right time for the right reason.
• In doing so, don’t fear making mistakes or a wrong decision. Admit mistakes and build on them. Admitting a wrong decision may garner you more respect than trying to appear to be right all the time.
• Don’t fear adversity. It’s a sign you are on the right path. Adversity builds strength.

Finally, true service and leadership stem from a willingness to take responsibility. Pray for the strength and wisdom. The Holy Spirit will guide you.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Richard J. Clark

Richard J. Clark is the Director of Music of the Archdiocese of Boston and the Cathedral of the Holy Cross.—(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“The recitation of the Office of the Dead, the Christmas Office, the spectacle of the days of Holy Week, the sublime chant of the Exultet, beside which the most intoxicating accents of Sophocles and Pindar seemed to me to be insignificant—all of this overwhelmed me with respect and joy, with gratitude, repentance, and adoration!”

— Paul Claudel (1913)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up